page_title: Crinoline
section_title: 1850s–60s
hierarchical_section_title: Crinoline / Late 19th century / 1850s–60s
caption_attribution_description: English: Spoof photograph from a sequence parodying the excessive size of crinolines c.1860
context_page_description: A crinoline is a stiff or structured petticoat designed to hold out a woman's skirt, popular at various times since the mid-19th century. Originally, crinoline described a stiff fabric made of horsehair and cotton or linen which was used to make underskirts and as a dress lining.
  By the 1850s the term crinoline was more usually applied to the fashionable silhouette provided by horsehair petticoats, and to the hoop skirts that replaced them in the mid-1850s. In form and function these hoop skirts were similar to the 16th- and 17th-century farthingale and to 18th-century panniers, in that they too enabled skirts to spread even wider and more fully.
  The steel-hooped cage crinoline, first patented in April 1856 by R.C. Milliet in Paris, and by their agent in Britain a few months later, became extremely popular. Steel cage crinolines were mass-produced in huge quantity, with factories across the Western world producing tens of thousands in a year. Alternative materials, such as whalebone, cane, gutta-percha and even inflatable caoutchouc were all used for hoops, although steel was the most popular.
context_section_description: The cage crinoline made out of spring steel wire was first introduced in the 1850s, with the earliest British patent for a metal crinoline (described as a 'skeleton petticoat of steel springs fastened to tape.') granted in July 1856. Alison Gernsheim suggests that the unidentified French inventor was probably R. C. Milliet of Besançon, as the July 1856 patent was filed by their British agent, C. Amet. Milliet had already patented a 'tournure de femme' in Paris on 24 April 1856 which was described as comprising 'elastic extensible circles joined together by vertical bands.' Following its introduction, the women's rights advocate Amelia Bloomer felt that her concerns about the hampering nature of multiple petticoats had been resolved, and dropped dress reform as an issue. Diana de Marly, in her biography of the couturier Charles Frederick Worth noted that by 1858 there existed steel factories catering solely to crinoline manufacturers, and shops that sold nothing else but crinolines. One of the most significant manufacturers of crinolines was that of Thomson & Co., founded by an American with branches across Europe and the United States. At the height of their success, up to four thousand crinolines were produced by Thomson's London factory in a day, whilst another plant in Saxony manufactured 9.5 million crinolines over a twelve-year period. In 1859 the New York factory, which employed about a thousand girls, used 300,000 yards of steel wire every week to produce between three and four thousand crinolines per day, while the rival Douglas & Sherwood factory in Manhattan used a ton of steel each week in manufacturing hoop skirts.
  The crinoline needed to be rigid enough to support the skirts in their accustomed shape, but also flexible enough to be temporarily pressed out of shape and spring back afterwards. Other materials used for crinolines included whalebone, gutta-percha and vulcanised caoutchouc (natural rubber). The idea of inflatable hoops was short-lived as they were easily punctured, prone to collapse, and due to the use of brimstone in the manufacture of rubber, they smelled unpleasant. Although hard rubber hoops of gutta-percha worked satisfactorily at first, they were brittle and easily crushed without recovering their form. Despite objections that the sharp points of snapped steels were hazardous, lightweight steel was clearly the most successful option. It reduced the number of petticoats and their weight, and offered increased freedom of movement of the legs. However, hasty or careless movements in a hoop skirt could lead to accidentally revealing more than intended. An advertisement published in The Lady's Newspaper in 1863 for a cage crinoline with waved hoops attempted to reassure the potential customer that while wearing it, activities such as climbing stairs, passing to her theatre seat, dropping into armchairs and leaning against furniture would be possible without hindrance either to herself or to others around her.
  Despite some claims, such as that by the historian Max von Boehm, that the largest crinolines measured up to ten yards (30 feet) around, the photohistorian Alison Gernsheim concluded that the maximum realistic circumference was in fact between five-and-a-half and six yards. Whilst a loosely gathered skirt draped over a large hoop would certainly require a higher yardage, Gernsheim noted that ten yard hems were highly improbable. Staged photographs showing women wearing exaggeratedly large crinolines were quite popular, such as a widely published sequence of five stereoscope views showing a woman dressing with the assistance of several maids who require long poles to lift her dress over her head and other ingenious means of navigating her enormous hoopskirt. Such photographs, which re-enacted contemporary caricatures rather than accurately reflecting reality, were aimed towards the voyeur's market. However, it was a fact that the size of the crinoline often caused difficulties in passing through doors, boarding carriages and generally moving about. By the late 1860s many crinolines were of a
caption: Comic photograph, c.1860
exif: {"Image Orientation": "Horizontal (normal)", "Image XResolution": "72", "Image YResolution": "72", "Image ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Image Software": "Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows", "Image DateTime": "2011:12:16 20:21:26", "Image ExifOffset": "162", "Thumbnail Compression": "JPEG (old-style)", "Thumbnail XResolution": "72", "Thumbnail YResolution": "72", "Thumbnail ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormat": "300", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormatLength": "6014", "EXIF ColorSpace": "Uncalibrated", "EXIF ExifImageWidth": "566", "EXIF ExifImageLength": "600"}